4.6 Article

Flow Visualisation and Evaluation Studies on Metalworking Fluid Applications in Manufacturing Processes-Methods and Results

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11092690

关键词

flow visualisation; manufacturing process; metalworking fluid; high-speed imaging; particle image velocimetry; shadowgraphy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metalworking operations rely on the successful application of metalworking fluids (MWFs) for effective and efficient operation. This paper discusses promising flow visualization techniques applied to different machining processes, which can help determine efficient machining parameters and MWF applications.
Metalworking operations rely on the successful application of metalworking fluids (MWFs) for effective and efficient operation. Processes such as grinding or drilling often require the use of MWFs for cooling, lubrication, and chip removal. Electrochemical machining processes require electrolyte flow to operate. However, in those machining operations, a fundamental understanding of the mode of action of MWF is lacking due to the unknown flow dynamics and its interaction with the material removal during the process. Important information on the behaviour of MWFs during machining can be obtained from specific experimental flow visualisation studies. In this paper, promising flow visualisation analysis techniques applied to exemplary machining processes (grinding, sawing, drilling, and electrochemical machining) are presented and discussed. Shadowgraph imaging and flow measurements, e.g., particle image velocimetry, allow the identification of typical flow and MWF operating regimes in the different machining processes. Based on the identification of these regimes, efficient machining parameters and MWF applications can be derived. In addition, detailed experimental analyses of MWFs provide essential data for the input and validation of model development and numerical simulations within the Priority Programme SPP 2231 FluSimPro.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据